David, I am 16 and live in Australia, and I would like you to know that I would like to one day also have the privilege of seeing the whales when I am as old as you (roughly 60 years time, you fat fucker). So please, have some empathy, I know you are entitled to free speech, but you are a complete and utter cunt.

How about you go lose a few kilo's by playing hide and go fuck yourself.

I know I am only 16 and that you have 60 years on me (and 200 kilos), but have some morals, stop being a complete consumerist twat and go eat something that a normal human being would eat, (not that you are human),

Some facts to counter your mindless ranting ...- minke whales are not, nor have they ever been, endangered- IWC's Scientific Committee has confirmed that none of JARPA's quotas are a threat to biodiversity- This issue has nothing to do with Environment or Conservation- It only has to do with forcing your cultural preconceptions of food onto others- That would make you a bigot- Your insinuation that he is not even human paints you in an even worse light than just being a bigot- Whale meat is extremely healthy, lean and rich in nutrients- David runs marathons.

Just to add to what Kujirakira said, don't be afraid to verify facts for yourself, independent of what the Australian media / Sea Shepherd propaganda tells you.

People are the way they are because of the environment in which they are raised. You are obviously "anti-whaling", and its not your fault.

But you might find it enlightening to do a little thinking about what you might be like had you been growing up in a different part of the world.

Finally, if you try this and but still get upset when you see what the world is like outside of Australia, then you probably ought not visit my blog as its likely to upset you. You needn't hurt yourself, and your diatribe made me laugh harder than any pleasure you would have derived from it.

Well some interesting facts you pulled out of your ass there kuji, "David runs marathons", fucking congratulations, as if I care. Oh and whale meat is not "extremely healthy" as it is full of mercury which, unless you are from a different planet or of a different species, most definitely not healthy. I also understand that the current state of the minke whale is currently not edangered, but seeing as the Japanese attempt and often do kill hundreds of them for "research" they soon will be endangered.

But at least for you two whale meat is stockpiled in japan, so even though the whales having fled from antarctica, you can enjoy stockpiled whale meat.

So you continue being ignorant human beings, who evidently don't listen to the facts of scientists saying whaling is harmful to the environment.

The baleen whales that feed in the international waters of the Southern Ocean are not full of mercury. It is "pulling it out of your ass", if I may, to suggest otherwise. These whale populations feed in an area of the world that is largely unpolluted (except for the odd bit of butyric acid and paint and oil dumped there by Sea Shepherd eco-terrorists during their attacks on Japanese vessels), and thus the krill and so forth that the whales feed on are quite free of anthropogenically composited mercury as compared with species that feed at higher trophic levels elsewhere. Whale meat is also low in nasty fats compared with Australian beef, for example. You might like to think about why Iceland, Norway and Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world if eating whales is really so unhealthy. You are welcome to slaughter cows and kangaroos and eat those of course, I'm not suggesting that you ought to change your culinary preferences, just to point out that what you may have heard from biased sources of information is not necessary something you should believe in.

Japan's current hunts are quite conservative and will not make minke whales endangered. They have been at this since before both you and I were born. Consider what it requires for a species to become endangered. Being and Australian I'm sure you are aware that kangaroos breed and produce offspring, hence, despite Australians slaughtering not hundreds, but literally millions of kangaroos each year, the target species has not become endangered. The biological characteristics of whales naturally differ from those of kangaroos, but there is no doubt that whales do copulate like any other animal, and produce offspring. Indeed Japan's research has revealed consistently high pregnancy rates in female whales feeding in the international waters of the Southern Ocean. Unless you have evidence that Japan's catches of a several hundred minke whales each year is not more than compensated by the reproductive capacity of the minke whale stocks being sampled, then you are "pulling it out of your ass", if I may again, to suggest that minke whales will become endangered because of these removals.

This key point is recognised in the whaling convention itself, which says "Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources"

Indeed, there is a good probability that quite significantly more minke whales could be removed from the Antarctic each year quite safely.

Yes, food is stocked in Japan. You may like to consider how 125 million of your fellow human beings would be able to eat all year round if this were not the case. This post from a few years ago might be of interest:http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2008/05/beef-pork-whale-stockpiles.html

As you are 16, I have no doubt that there is much that you do know. However I invite you to consider that there is also much that you do not know as well (through no fault of your own), as the Australian media and the Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist organization have no interest in informing the Aussie public of facts which do not fit in with Australian's cultural perspective.

For example, you suggest that scientists say that "whaling is harmful to the environment", when in fact the truth is that scientists have made it clear that sustainable catch limits for baleen whale stocks can be safely set. See this piece at the BBC with the IWC's Head of Science, Greg Donovan for details:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5103378.stm

Your Australian pride is to be admired, but consider also whether it wouldn't be nice to also have the pride of being a globally minded citizen as well.

If you love whipping out articles all the time, then how about I do the same. Also, just so you know, there are articles on the internet for just about anything, I mean I could legitimately publish an article on you saying how much of a cunt you are.

Well, I see you have re-enabled commenting on your blog, which is great as it gives me something to do.

'Australianarrogance', please go look in a dictionary, being arrogant is putting yourself on a pedestal, above others, but apart from putting someone down, I havent said that I am better than David.

Anyway, onto the real issue at hand, whaling.Yes I agree that sustainable limits CAN be set, but you must admit that if whaling continued as it has been, this sustainability standard will never be met.

And yes I understand about the 125 million people living on stockpiled food, but whale meat is being wasted, not eaten (except by a small minority).

David, you continue to mention that things CAN be done, such as whaling sustainably or that the main point of the whaling convention "Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated". But these things haven't been done and that is the issue.

I also am aware of the slaughter of Kangaroos, but they are not endangered to the same extent as whales, nor do I eat kangaroo meat. I am anti-the slaughter of kangaroo's, my life doesnt revolve around your blog.

I hope you have noticed that I have lost the aggressive tone, as maybe this tactic will guide you in seeing that whaling is not sustainable.

Thankyou

p.s. Australianarrogance, your name is patronising yourself, making yourself look either like a hypocrite or an idiot (potentially both)

You say for you the issue is that things (sustainable whaling) may be possible but have not been done so.

The way I see it, we can not change the past, and the RMP did not exist when the mistakes of the past relating to whaling were made. I do not believe that people should throw away the future and the opportunities available to them because of mistakes made in the past. Imagine if we were to employ this philosophy generally to our own lives. Just think about how many mistakes people make during their lives. People don't give up when they make mistakes. They learn from them, and move forward.

From your perspective, I imagine you get no benefit from whaling peoples catching whales and consuming them, but perceive that there is a risk that over-exploitation of whales could theoretically occur in future again, because it occurred in the past. Therefore, you prefer there to be no whaling. This is not an irrational belief on your part. It's the most simple and obvious risk mitigation strategy, from your perspective.

But the problem with this is that this is only your perspective.

Other people do benefit from catching whales and consuming them, just as Australians benefit from various forms of exploitation of animals (including through export of those products to consumers in Japan).

Solutions to past problems have to properly consider the interests of people affected to be realistic, workable, agreeable and lasting.

To put this in another context, let's consider people who do not like to fly in airplanes, as we know there is a risk of airplanes crashing, and there are obvious bad consequences associated with that when it happens. Yet, although these people are not affected by airplanes crashing, they do not suggest that airplanes ought to be banned to mitigate the chance of risk of airplanes crashing. We know that what other people do in the face of such uncertainty is to take measures to mitigate the risks that they have identified, and then weigh the potential benefits against the potential risks to make a decision about whether to use and airplane or not.

This is risk management, and it's at the heart of the IWC's Revised Management Procedure for whaling.

The problem of course for lay people is that the scientific concepts of the RMP are not so obvious and understandable as it is to simply ban whaling in order to mitigate risk. But again, that latter option is not a realistic solution in a world shared by various peoples of diverse cultures and beliefs.

(I have no problem personally with Australians slaughtering millions of kangaroos for commercial use, pest control etc - I raised that more to illustrate the biological concept of your so-called "endangered" whales being able to replenish their numbers when subjected to sustainable harvests.)

Through all of this, I am not expecting you to change your mind. You are welcome to your opinion, as other people are to theirs.

However, I would invite you to reassess just how serious the risk of whale over-exploitation occuring again in future is. You yourself suggest that "whale meat is being wasted, not eaten". If you believe that this is true, then I find it difficult to see why you would be afraid of over-exploitation occuring by allowing sustainable whaling to continue. If there is poor demand, then it provides no incentive for whalers to suddenly over-exploit whale stocks again. In the past, there was a large demand for whale oil - yet this source of demand is long since gone now. Still, like those who chose not to fly in airplanes, you may still personally feel the risk outweighs the benefits.

But it is also then prudent to consider other risks. If the anti-whaling campaigners cling to their ostensible fears of over-exploitation and continue to urge nations like Australia to deny any form of whaling, a potential risk is that the whaling countries quit the IWC out of frustration, form a new whaling organization amongst themselves, and potentially go on to over-exploit whales again - due perhaps to lack of the specialities that non-whaling countries like Australia could bring to the regulatory system of whaling. That is, the fears may potentially turn out to be self-defeating. As I see things, this risk is at least every bit as possible as the chance that allowing whaling in future will lead to over-exploitation.

My impression is that Australia's decision makers see less risk in the whaling nations quiting the IWC and resuming whaling than they do by through the political consequences for them were they to opt to separate domestic politics from the realities of international society and Australia's obligations in it.

You analogy of plays is ridiculous, it is completely unrelated to whaling as firstly, the people who risk their lives in being passengers of the planes choose to do so, whales do not have a choice in whether of not to be slaughtered. Secondly, the majority of people who actually know about the whaling matters are ANTI whaling whereas people who experience travel by aeroplane are PRO flying. So if you are going to make analogies at least make them relevant.

Now onto the important thing, you continually said in your 2 comments that whaling WAS exploitation (continually referring to the past), but the only reason that the Japanese are not currently slaughtering whales is because of Sea Shepherd. The whalers still set out at the beginning of this year to meet a quota, a quota that would be considered as over whaling and exploitation and un-sustainability of the environment if it was met. So although you think that whaling is a "past problem" it is still very much an issue.

If no one was attempting to stop the Japanese, then they would do what they want.

Can't reply in full now, but this is curious: "a quota that would be considered as over whaling and exploitation and un-sustainability of the environment if it was met."

I don't know where you get this from. Just saying that something is over-exploitation does not mean it is.

"If no one was attempting to stop the Japanese, then they would do what they want."

What's wrong with people doing what they want? And in case you didn't know, the Japanese don't have a burning desire to exterminate whales. The general view is that whaling is fine so long as it doesn't drive whales to extinction.

I hope that was a joke, I mean, obviously people can do what they want to an extent but if people could just "do what they want" then I have no idea where this world would be. China probably would have invaded Australia so that they can take their resources instead of having to pay for them. America might possibly have nuked half, if not the whole of the Middle East to exploit the oil. Germany might want a new policy of Lebensraum and invade Poland again, starting a third world war... But it wouldn't matter because they were just doing what they wanted....

Please, I understand that you are educated due to the way you express yourself, but that comment was ridiculous.

Furthermore, you comment "I don't know where you get this from. Just saying that something is over-exploitation does not mean it is." shows that you are losing your grip with this argument, or quite possibly reality.

You could use that comment on anything that has ever been said or done, it is a secular argument that makes you look quite stupid, even from the perspective of a teenager. Here is an example of what your comment means, ill detract from whaling for a minute and give a different example

Person A: "The attempted extermination of a race is bad"

Person B: "Just because you said it's bad, doesn't make it bad"

That argument can go on forever, but there is a word for it, add this one to your vocabulary 'opinion'.

So I don't know if the mercury in the whale meat you eat is getting to your head, but everything that you said in your last comment was completely retarded.

p.s. people "doing what they want" uncontrollably is called anarchy, go do a google search and find out how many anarchist societies have succeeded. I'm all about free will, but there is a limit. And for me the line is drawn at the mindless killing of whales

I think we both know the context was clear, but if you demand it be put more explicitly, what I asked is what is wrong with the Japanese (or anyone) doing what they want [in this case, sustainably harvesting some whales]?

As I pointed out to you, no one wants to exterminate whale species - least of all the people that hope to eat whales forever, e.g. people of those places where there is a culture of whales being food.

As also I said, "Just saying that something is over-exploitation does not mean it is". Your response to this was to say that I may be losing grip with reality. This is not the sort of argument that is going to get you an "A" mark on any of your papers in school. You need to provide reasons to support your assertion, if you want people to come to agree or sympathise with your way of thinking.

I note that you have already agreed with me that sustainable whaling is possible - just you believe (for some reason, still unknown to me) that whaling wouldn't be sustainable "if the Japanese get to do what they want".

I don't see any reason to believe that to be true. That's me personally... You may have some reasons, but I am unaware of what they might be. Feel free to elucidate on that point, if you do have reasons for believing that the Japanese have some kind of wants that would lead them to exterminate whales in future (and see my previous comments about your assertion of there also being poor demand for whale products - if this is indeed the case then I still don't know what you are worried about with respect to Japanese desires on whale resources)

Finally, you say:

> I'm all about free will, but there is a limit. And for me the line is drawn at the mindless killing of whales

For me the limit is sustainable whaling.

I do not support unsustainable whaling.

But I do support sustainable whaling.

I am for the area between the extremes of "no whaling", and "whaling to the point of extinction".

You haven't given me any reason to take something other than this middle ground.

As for me, I believe sustainable whaling is acceptable because it takes into consideration both the interests of current and future generations to benefit from the exploitation of whale resources. Sustainable whaling is conservation of whale stocks, by definition. I am against preservation of individual whales. I do not seeing sustainable whaling as "mindless killing".